“in scope enemy”/acquisitions policies (217)

Revision for ““in scope enemy”/acquisitions policies (217)” created on July 21, 2014 @ 14:51:41

“in scope enemy”/acquisitions policies (217)
<p>Topic: Acquisitions / “In Scope Enemy”</p> <p>Explanation: The importance of having an acquisition policy. Indie/barefoot libraries often coming around to acquisition policy need post-library/collection start—how to decide and put one in a visible place? Additionally, what do you do when you get the kind of in scope material that you never thought you’d receive?</p> <p>Facilitator: Lisa</p> <p>Note taker: Celina</p> <p>Discussion Notes:</p> <p>-          QZAP’s policy addresses what is zines in addition to what’s a queer zine based on content, creator’s self-identification/expression gender/identity. They also have some queer flyers. (Milo)</p> <p>-          IPRC … would like info on “hierarchical acquisition policies as contrary to the nature the community that may be” – Lillian</p> <p>-          Acquisition policies are a great tool for saying no politely</p> <p>-          Collection decisions typically motivated by community building and preservation. Questions: What are the expectations? Is there a possible theoretical issue here? (Jan)</p> <p>-          The line between acquisition policies and library/project missions are often murky</p> <p>-          Personal value judgments related to not only the mission behind the collection but also the needs/wants/priorities of the space. “I want local zines that are not off the charts obscene or hateful.” – Jude</p> <p>-          IPRC, for example, makes sure to place no value judgments even in record creation on “obscene” materials (Lillian)</p> <p>-          Papercut rarely gets hate materials but they do have a category called “bullshit,” stored in a box in the basement for people doing anti-fascist work (Kimberly)</p> <p>-          Usefulness in documenting and preserving the historical trajectory of a movement or a publication (this can often mean embarrassingly bad writings, art, etc.)</p> <p>-          Important to consider the value of resources, “effort into access” (Kelly M.) and often limited shelf space; Sometimes it’s just enough to know that it exists/available if you ask the right person</p> <p>-          Work that is a “pain in the ass” to catalog or make accessible but then prove to be worthwhile because of one thing (radical newspapers from Germany / Berlin wall). “I wake up thinking about our backlog” – Lillian, IPRC</p> <p>-          Possibility of prioritizing acquisitions based on user stats, if available. (Jennifer)</p> <p>-          In the decision to give away collections, “these things need to be kept but do they need to be kept here.” (Katie)</p> <p>-          Flipside of accession policies = the deaccession policy, and it’s just as important. Priorities shift when there’s a clear availability elsewhere (Jeremy)</p> <p>-          “That’s why we need the union catalog!” – Lillian</p> <p>-          The listserv is helpful in the meantime (Jennifer)</p> <p>-          IPRC has very specific stats that show when and what people are reading. “One-handed cataloging.” ;)</p> <p>-          Helpful for polices to address why we say no, but explaining why things take long. Your resources have a place in your collection development policy. Managing expecations. (Lisa)</p> <p>-          Zine “scope”—the difficulty of explaining (continuously) to authorities who don’t get it, or think they do and then don’t anymore (Celina)</p> <p>-          Tying the scope into existing areas of a larger archive/collection</p> <p>-          Writing an FAQ</p> <p>-          Comparing zines as another format, e.g. letters, to administrators (Kelly W.)</p> <p>-          “Hit by a bus” scenario is another reason why policy creation is vital (Milo)</p> <p>-          IPRC maker space / donation station. “If you make a zine, catalog it” and gaming approach to backlog management. (Lillian)</p> <p>-          Are there creative ways to use numbers without sounding like an asshole? Make it visible? “zine purgatory” pictures (Lillian)</p> <p>-          Note the mistake of seeing “DIY” as “do it BY yourself” (Lisa)</p> <p>-          Ask for lists prior to donation. You can say ‘no’ before it comes in the mail, but some people may still ignore the website language and drop off things.</p> <p>-          Keep a listing of removed zines and reasons why they were not kept--duplicate, out-of scope, etc. (Kimberly)</p> <p>-          Indie/barefoot libraries have the added benefit of using out-of-scope/deaccessioned materials for funding, grab bags, etc. (Cue the bidding war for smutty UK comics.)</p> <p>-          Useful document: <a href="http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/GuidelinesForReappraisalAndDeaccessioning-May2012.pdf ">SAA Guidelines for Reappraisal + Deaccessioning</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Action Items:</p> <p>1)      Everyone: If you have an accession and deaccession policy, please share it for a future page on zf.info about how to and why create an acquisition policy.</p> <p>2)      Milo and Lisa will be working together on the above mentioned page.</p> <p>3)      Lillian WILL remove the give-us-all-the-things language from the IPRC website.</p>

OldNewDate CreatedAuthorActions
July 21, 2014 @ 14:51:41 willcn84
July 21, 2014 @ 14:50:15 willcn84
July 21, 2014 @ 14:48:11 willcn84
July 21, 2014 @ 14:45:56 willcn84